LAST WEEK, the U.S. Senate passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. The groundwork behind this bill was seven years in the making and President Bush is expected to sign it into law. However, immediately after the bill was passed, an all-star legal team headed by former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr formed to challenge the constitutionality of this bill in court. The legality of this bill should be upheld as its contents help even the playing field of the democratic election process.
Campaign finance reform is needed badly. In this past presidential election, Bush raised the highest amount of money ever put together to campaign for his election from "soft money" donations from individuals, a record $91 million by July 31, 2000 ("Receipts of 1999-2000 Presidential Campaigns Through July 31, 2000," www.fec.gov). Soft money comes from donations by special interest groups and private corporations that are supposed to be used by the party but instead openly go toward supporting political candidates.
It is unclear what exactly a politician gives back to those that supported him during his campaign. However, it should be noted that there is the possibility for politicians to feel like they are "indebted" to their beneficiaries. In that case, their political agendas may not be set by their own ideas, but rather by the needs of their contributors, who were not elected.
|
To limit the extent of this form of now-legal corruption, a group of congressmen introduced the campaign finance reform bill. This bill makes provisions for expedited legal review of contributions and limits soft money contributions, in order to diminish the likelihood that those funds would be illegally funneled to a nationwide election. The bill also makes more provisions as to donation disclosure and includes measures aimed at outside groups that take soft money contributions and put out ads supporting a candidate or denouncing opponents.
The reforms that this bill provides for will help to take a substantial amount of money that comes from special interests out of the electoral equation. Although politicians will not have as much money with which to campaign, they will have enough: The government will give candidates a stipend with which to run their bids for office, and donations still will be allowed, just not unlimited.
However, if this bill is struck down in court by Kenneth Starr's legal team, the fate of our political system once again will lie within the pockets of the wealthy. Although the campaign finance reform bill does not seem to be unconstitutional on its surface, one cannot underestimate the creativity and persuasiveness of the cunning minds that are part of the legal team. Kenneth Starr and his cronies may be able to build a case that will wipe away the campaign reform bill.
Opponents of the bill are concerned with possible impediments to free speech. If caps are placed on political contributions, it will limit the ability of citizens to express their political opinions. However, even with the bill in place, contributions will continue to be allowed and people still will be able to voice their support publicly. The only difference is that the odds will be more even because an ordinary laborer will have equivalent power of expression as a multimillionaire.
Another worry is that this bill would favor incumbents. Challengers to a position may not be able to advertise themselves enough to make up for the name recognition that an incumbent would have around a district, because they may not have enough money. Yet this also may work in favor of a challenger, because an incumbent will not be able to run a campaign of monstrous proportions that would totally obscure an opposing bid.
Even if certain parts of the bill are found to be unconstitutional, it should be hoped that a court would rule in favor of keeping or amending as much legislation as possible to ensure that our electoral system will not be abused as much as it is now.
The current campaign finance limitations frequently are abused, as soft money that is supposed to be used by the party to structure and support itself goes instead to support political candidates. Although these activities are not legal, they still go on since current laws regarding contribution disclosure barely are acknowledged. Beneficial change must come, and as President Bush said in a March 21 statement, "The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall."
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
